tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955Fri, 01 Nov 2024 09:27:43 +0000San Francisco GiantsTim Lincecum2010 PlayoffsBuster PoseyJonathan SanchezMadison BumgarnerMatt CainBarry ZitoBruce BochyPat BurrellAndres TorresLos Angeles DodgersAubrey HuffCody RossJuan UribePablo SandovalArizona DiamondbacksFreddy SanchezPhiladelphia PhilliesColorado RockiesEdgar RenteriaFJM FridayBrandon BeltBrian WilsonSan Diego PadresTexas RangersChicago CubsBrian SabeanMLBAaron RowandAll-Star GameAtlanta BravesFlorida MarlinsJose GuillenNate SchierholtzNational LeagueTradesBengie MolinaBruce JenkinsCincinnati RedsDavid DeJesusSt. Louis CardinalsAmerican LeagueCarlos BeltranComicsDarren FordEmmanuel BurrissFree AgencyHall of FameJavier LopezKevin BrownMiguel TejadaMike FontenotMilwaukee BrewersPhil CuzziRamon RamirezRay RattoTroy Tulowitzki2010 World Series Champions2011 SeasonAdam DunnAngel VillalonaBill HallBud SeligCC SabathiaCam InmanCarlos ZambranoChris RayClayton KershawCleveland IndiansCorey HartCurt SchillingCy YoungDan UgglaDontrelle WillisDumb Fucking IdeaEli WhitesideEugenio VelezFelix HernandezFred MerkleGary BrownGuillermo MotaInternational Free AgencyJFKJason HeywardJoe PanikJoe PosnanskiJoey VottoJosh HamiltonJuan MarichalKansas City RoyalsKosuke FukudomeKyle CrickMLB DraftMVPMark DeRosaMatt KempMichael MainMinor LeaguesMychael UrbanNew York MetsNew York YankeesPlayoff ExpansionPrince FielderRafael RodriguezRoy HalladayScott OstlerSergio RomoThomas NealTim MarchmanTodd WellemeyerTravis IshikawaWashington NationalsZack Wheeler8th INNING WEIRDNESSnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)Blogger197125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-6043978049155113416Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:52:00 +00002012-04-11T00:18:59.502-07:00San Francisco GiantsLate Season Preview<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; font-family:arial;font-size:100%;color:#ffffff;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><i>*I had to post this under my name, but it was written by guest contributor Michael Smith. Follow him on twitter: @brocean.</i></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><br /></span></div>Truth be told, this post was supposed to go up last week, day before the Giants played their first game. However, responsibilities and the like got in the way (financing a car #nct.) and I just never got around to it during my "free time". Don't treat this as a season preview but more of a talking points collection to be able to look back with high hopes at either the All-Star break or with sorrow and acceptance as the September stretch nears and the Giants are hanging on by a thread.<br /><br />2011 offseason in review:<br /><br />- Pitching depth! Pitching depth? Jonathan Sanchez is gone. Thank GOD! That idiot asshole was one of the worst pitchers in the league, etc etc etc. Selling low, injury, walks like 5 per 9 innings. Well, maybe not. It's not crazy to see him post a league average ERA with 160-180 IP. Sure, you'll pull your hair out, but I'd also sleep slightly easier at night with him in the rotation than three question marks: Vogelsong, Zito and Surkamp. (more on this matter later on in the post, where I’m actually optimistic on Melky Cabrera)<br /><br />With new regime leader Larry Baer and the introduction of a self-imposed budget restraint (even though the team is still rolling in cash), I was already bracing for a frugal approach to the offseason. Which I wouldn't necessarily mind. You never want to lock up your wrists in the later years, just to WIN NOW at the expense of possibly being unable to buy out your young arbitration-eligible players' looming raises.<br /><br />When Carlos Beltran's deal with the St. Louis Cardinals details surfaced to be a $12.5M average annual value over two years, I was sure that would be the one and only real mistake the Giants made. The trade was already hard to swallow in losing Zack Wheeler, now made impossible to contain when you see that you don't even get another year or two of Carlos Beltran. To make matters worse, the price tag was near nothing for a hitter of his caliber. What could have been: Pagan-Posey-Pablo-Beltran-Belt. A potent 1-5.<br /><br />I even let them have "let's keep two of the same player" mistake when Affeldt and Javier Lopez were retained. You get one mulligan, Giants! Just this one. But in late January, the Giants outdid themselves by watching the Rockies (Hi, division rivals) acquire Marco Scutaro via trade for a replaceable arm in Clayton Mortensen. Colorado acquired him to be a second baseman, but truthfully, he can still take it at shortstop. And with his hitting ability and the scarcity of the middle infield positions, he even becomes a plus-player there.<br /><br />Coco Crisp walked back to Oakland with a 2 year deal for $14M, something I was okay with considering the Giants acquired Angel Pagan and center fielder by default Melky Cabrera. That and I would not have been thrilled with that acquisition.<br /><br />Mike Fontenot was cut because of his handed-ness. Let's be honest with ourselves on the matter. Just another instance of left-handers being exonerated from baseball. But really, he was the more useful "2B"/utility infielder of the choices between him, Emmanuel Burriss, and Ryan Theriot. However, the team is already too left-handed (in their own estimation) to carry another left-handed player. What their thought process lacks though, is that some of those LHB position players include: Brandon Crawford and Aubrey Huff. Some reaction I’ve seen is “If that’s a big problem for the team, then they were already shit out of luck”. Let’s be honest: the middle of the field positions are as vital as having your “mashers” in the corners or your 1-2 punch in the rotation. A revolving door of Crawford/Theriot/Burriss doesn’t give me much to look forward to. To make matters worse (fine, more alarming): eventually one will even play 3rd when Sandoval sits. Theriot’s lollypop arm or Burriss’ mental mistakes. Pick your poison.<br /><br />At least the Giants did well in extending Matt Cain at what is a fair deal when you realize they are paying for his age 27 to age 32 seasons. The money isn't as great a deal when you stop to think about just how much more he could have gotten in a starving free-agent market. That's a more certain deal than paying for Tim Lincecum's age 29 to (possibly) age 34/5/6? seasons at a higher annual average value when that time comes.<br /><br />I would be okay with the Giants putting their hands up and slowly walking away from signing that big Lincecum deal two years from now. As long as part of that money goes to locking up Madison Bumgarner's arbitration-years from being raised. And of course, development.<br /><br />Things I'm rooting for this season:<br /><br />- Melky Cabrera to make me eat crow, all of it. (Hi, Troy)<br />I didn't like the deal at all when it occurred. Trading away a still 4th-starter-caliber pitcher for a "center fielder" whose season seemed inflated was risky. I want Melky to be a more-than-league-average CF, and not turn back into a pumpkin whose ceiling is that of a 4th outfielder. Please let this be the start of your prime. Because up until his questionable season last year, he had an 85 OPS+ (say, is that like a post-Philadelphia Aaron Rowand line?)<br /><br />- Angel Pagan to do well.<br />If only to shush Spring Training statistics thumpers. That, and he's interesting. I too, caught on to his act in 2009/2010 as he "broke out" by being given a chance on a Mets team that needed warm bodies in the outfield. As I recognize his year-to-year decline, I'd also like to take a chance on him still posting around a 95 OPS+ while holding down center field with decent enough defense to be a difference maker. The decline I speak of (in OPS+, from 2009-2011) is 122 to 108 to 93. Also, bon voyage, Andres Torres. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-style: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; color:initial;"><img title=":(" class="emote_img" src="; style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; height: 16px; vertical-align: top; width: 16px; background-image: url(); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; bottom: 1px; margin-bottom: -2px; position: relative; background-position: -16px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; " /></span><br /><br />- Emmanuel Burriss to ... not succeed (please don't hate me?)<br />(See above re: Spring Training statistics)<br /><br />- Aubrey Huff to also not do well, or at least "not well" enough for the front office to really hand the job to Brandon Belt (Some of you might really hate me for this one)<br />Last year, the day before he hit 3 home runs in a game, I publicly went against Aubrey Huff. I even got kudos from some people who condemned me for saying something I had bottled up, then. I have never been a fan of the player, and when he did well in 2010, I had to accept it and root for him because hey flags fly forever. But now, if he performs even materialistically "decent", Brandon Belt will be blocked even further from being a starter provided he doesn't get off to the hottest of starts. Difference in 2010: no young player being blocked. I mean, as much as Bowkermania ran wild back then (RIP), he was still a 26-year-old player. Belt is 23 and more promise than John Bowker had shown at that point, or ever. I don't think Huff is as bad an outfielder as 2011 showed in those two weeks. However, there's something to be said about the ~adequate corner outfield adventures in 2010 and that he's two years older since he was that grade of an outfielder.<br /><br />- Barry Zito to do well, or at least well enough for his repertoire (170 IP, 105 ERA+)<br />The timing of this post seems a bit opportunistic what with his unicorn ascension (fuck a phoenix) in Denver. But ultimately, this is to stop the dog-piling on a player who hasn't put up a fuss about his situation. And someone I've rooted for at least 10 years now. Those, and if he doesn't succeed, you would really be trimming your candle wicks and biting your lower lip after every Eric Surkamp outing in the minors. Do you have faith in Surkamp working good off-speed pitches with a below-average fastball in the Majors? I don’t, not really. Do you feel confident in Zito being a league-average pitcher, still? I do, but I’m also his biggest apologist. Also, if you didn’t trust Surkamp, how would you trust Zito…? Not only that, but Vogelsong is very much no sure thing. I've even trimmed a blurb on him because this post has already gone on long enough.<br /><br />Thing I've come to terms with, begrudgingly:<br />Freddy Sanchez and his availability this season. Can he put together even 100 games for 2012 at this rate? I hope. But his projected batting lines don't really have that great a difference from him and Ryan Theriot. And another year older, whose defense prowess depends so much on lateral movement to balls in play.<br /></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; font-family:arial;font-size:100%;color:#ffffff;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; font-family:arial;font-size:100%;color:#ffffff;">No prediction for how they'll do this year. Just hope that everything really does break right for this team.</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2012/04/late-season-preview.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-3631774750222085886Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:00:00 +00002011-08-22T01:22:59.988-07:00Who Has the Better September Offense: Giants or Diamondbacks?This might seem like a ridiculous question. The Giants are a horrible offensive team, while the Diamondbacks have Justin Upton and 10 other guys that can hit 450 foot home runs. The Giants team wRC+ is 79, while Arizona is at 93. But a closer look at the individual parts that will make up both lineups in the final month of the season reveals that there potentially isn't much of a gap.
<br />
<br />San Francisco's ideal lineup would include a healthy Carlos Beltran and Brandon Belt playing, either at 1st base or in left field. Mike Fontenot gets the nod over Tejada and Cabrera at shortstop. The only decision is whether to play Belt at first base and Ross in the outfield, or Huff at first and Belt in left field. I went with Ross. Here's the lineup and their 2011 wRC+:
<br />
<br />Ross - 96
<br />Schierholtz - 105
<br />Beltran - 145
<br />Sandoval - 132
<br />Fontenot - 89
<br />Keppinger - 102
<br />Belt - 91 (before his 4 hit game on Sunday)
<br />Whiteside - 74
<br />
<br />Now here is Arizona's:
<br />
<br />Parra - 103
<br />Young - 95
<br />Upton - 147
<br />Roberts - 114
<br />Bloomquist - 76
<br />Johnson - 89
<br />Goldschmidt - 132
<br />Montero - 107
<br />
<br />Let's remove Goldschmidt and Belt for a moment. They both have a small amount of plate appearances, and I am pretty confident in saying Belt is the better hitter. That's an advantage for the Giants. But let's pretend it's even, and look at the rest of the lineup. Looks pretty even as well.
<br />
<br />This is all dependent, of course, on the health of Carlos Beltran. If he isn't part of that San Francisco lineup, it changes everything. And just because the Giants might be as good as the Diamondbacks or possibly have an edge offensively doesn't mean they'll perform better, especially in the short period of a month.
<br />
<br />Cap of the tip to <a href=" of Benitez</a> for his close reading of <span style="font-style: italic;">Baseball Rulebook, Page 1</span>, invaluable insight that guided my work and made this post possible.
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/08/who-has-better-september-offense-giants.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Reza)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-4525525288586959796Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:55:00 +00002011-08-20T01:40:39.869-07:00Madison BumgarnerMatt CainSan Francisco GiantsTim LincecumFacts and Statisticinos About Tomorrow's Starting PitcherCheck <a href="; out, loyal readers. Madison Bumgarner turned 22 this August, meaning his official age for the 2011 season is 21 (he was 21 on June 30, the halfway point of the season). He is having an historically great season for a pitcher his age, especially in the DIPS department. He's in his first full season, and he already has better command of the strike zone than his teammates Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum right now. Lincecum and Cain already had the "stuff" when they arrived in the majors; they had to add some quality pitches and "learn how to pitch" to become the aces they've been for several years. Bumgarner has a certain amount of "stuff"; he also seems to already have a great idea of "how to pitch". His K/BB ratio is 3rd best all time for a pitcher his age in a single season, and his placement barely changes if you use age 22 as the qualifier instead. Notice that the closest pitcher in recent memory is Brett Anderson, and he's not even that close. The only recent pitchers with K/BB over 3.00 on that list are Anderson and King Felix. Madison Bumgarner right now is doing something pretty unique. Imagine what kind of pitcher he could be in 2 or 3 years. Should we expect a development in either his stuff or his overall pitching ability?
<br />
<br />Perhaps not. Every pitcher develops differently, and Bumgarner now could be close to the finished product. Maybe he never has another 2.60 FIP season. He could still be an excellent pitcher. Perhaps the improvement occurs in his ability to prevent weak contact. His .330 BABIP is very high and a product of bad luck and poor defense, but maybe part of it is attributable to his skill or approach. There could be a regression in his home run prevention, or even his strikeouts and walks.
<br />
<br />But is that what we should expect? No. It's only fair and normal to think that he will get better in some respect. Which is exciting. And scary.
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/08/facts-and-statisticinos-about-tomorrows.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Reza)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-6452420286056073494Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:34:00 +00002011-07-28T12:42:07.079-07:00Bill HallBrandon BeltCarlos BeltranEmmanuel BurrissSan Francisco GiantsMuch Better: Hall DFA'd, Burriss Sent DownOkay, Pat Burrell was not released. Bill Hall was. And Brandon Belt was not sent to AAA. Emmanuel Burriss was. This is good news, because these moves are exactly what the Giants should have done. But that blatant error on the part of CSN made me write a rant post that now looks kind of dumb.<div><br /></div><div>You can still read it <a href="2011/07/too-much-to-handle.html">here</a> if you like.</div><div><br /></div><div>A lot of it still applies. There's stuff about Beltran, and while Belt hasn't been sent down, we heard today that the Giants envision him in a role similar to that of Travis Ishikawa last season. In other words, Brandon Belt will mostly be a pinch hitter/defensive replacement. And Huff is still starting. Which is terrible. So that rant still applies. Also, ALEX HINSHAW?</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't know about you but I haven't been this excited for a game since Opening Day. I'll say Carlos Beltran goes 2-for-4 with 2 singles and 9 RBIs. Oh and he'll also make the pitcher balk. That talented.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/07/much-better-hall-dfad-burriss-sent-down.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-652179213179838746Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:26:00 +00002011-07-28T12:58:18.365-07:00Aubrey HuffBrandon BeltCarlos BeltranPat BurrellSan Francisco GiantsToo Much to HandleWhat a freakin' rollercoaster. I don't like rollercoasters. They make me throw up. I can't know this because I've never been on a rollercoaster, but I'd like to think I'd throw up if I ever got on one. That's how I avoid them. And recent events are confirming my worries.<div><br /></div><div>Let's start at the beginning.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Giants acquired Carlos Beltran. You know that. What you may not know is how it all went down. The Giants traded Gary Brown. Damnit, I thought they could get him without giving up a top prospect. Wait, they're giving up Zack Wheeler. No! Wheeler's even better. They're trading Wheeler and Brown. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING SHITTING ME. Oops, they're just giving up Wheeler. Okay...I hate whoever put that rumor out there. It's very possible that the Giants are giving up Wheeler, Eric Surkamp, and Francisco Peguero for Beltran. Dead. Wait, the Giants may be getting more than just Beltran. OMG REYES?! Shutup, that isn't happening. In the end, they gave up top pitching prospect Zack Wheeler in the deal, a fairly steep price to pay, and a price I wasn't willing to pay up until today. But I trust the Giants in evaluating pitching prospects and the thought of Beltran in the lineup is jus too exciting, so I'm okay with the deal.</div><div><br /></div><div>That's not to say this isn't a huge risk. Beltran has a pretty significant injury history and is likely a two month rental. If the Giants don't win the World Series or if Beltran gets injured and Wheeler goes on to be a star, yikes. But I've decided it's a risk worth taking. Okay.</div><div><br /></div><div>It get's announced that Beltran will play RF, with a Schierholtz/Ross platoon in LF. Small quibble, but Schierholtz is a very good right fielder, not to mention the skill it takes to play that position at AT&T park. And why is Schierholtz getting platooned? It doesn't really make sense to give one of your better players LESS playing time, but that will be a common theme later in this post.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Matt Cain is Matt Cain. Getting shit done.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now there's the business of clearing a 40-man and 25-man roster spot for Beltran, who will be arriving and starting tomorrow. What's this? Brandon Belt is optioned down to AAA AGAIN and Pat Burrell is released to make room on the 40-man roster. Whoa.</div><div><br /></div><div>At first glance, the real baffling move is to send Brandon Belt back to AAA. The Giants have one of the worst players in baseball this year playing Belt's position right now. There's that whole not playing your best players theme already. And it's not like they can blame this demotion on Belt's struggles at the plate, which was at least a somewhat legitimate excuse after his first demotion. Belt has barely played, but when he has, he's hit pretty well (no hits against Clayton Kershaw, one of the best lefties in the game, so who cares). And, wait a minute, Emmanuel Burriss is still on the Major League roster? That guy as an OPS+ of 41. But he's FAST!! Give me a break. The Giants don't really need him for depth - Keppinger, Fontenot, and Crawford all play SS. The case can even be made that Crawford should be sent down before Belt. For all of his great defense, he can't hit, and isn't going to get much playing time going forward.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the decision to release Burrell might be more mind-numbingly dumb. It wasn't necessarily that surprising because Aaron Rowand is owed too much money to be cut, of course. But Pat Burrell had the 3rd best OPS on the team this season. He really can still hit. The worst part is that he did NOT need to be released to make room on the 40-man roster. Steve Edlefsen. Clayton Tanner. Alex Hinshaw (What the hell is this love affair with Hinshaw, who is AWFUL?). Bill Hall. These guys are all not very good. Why keep them? It's so un-sabermetric, but clubhouse chemistry is very important and we have every reason to believe that Pat Burrell was a big part of that. I'd love to think a team won't grab him or maybe he can retire and stay around the team. But as I pointed out, he's too good, and a smart team will pick him up.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>UPDATE: CSN, who reported this news, has failed. Pat Burrell is not eligible to come off the DL and can't be released yet. Still, the point stands and I wouldn't be surprised if he's released soon.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>UPDATE #2: Holy hell, Brandon Belt isn't being sent down and this post is mostly worthless. What the hell happened at CSN today?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>I don't know. I haven't processed everything. There's an argument to made that the biggest upgrade this team could make was replacing Huff with Belt, and that isn't happening. And a good player and great clubhouse presence is being dumped in favor of much worse players. I love having Beltran on this team, but the Giants are doing their best to screw it up.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/07/too-much-to-handle.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-8307641616955286658Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:47:00 +00002011-07-24T21:58:35.064-07:00Matt Cain's Career Year<div>You know how we feel about Matt Cain on this blog. If you don't, just read <a href="2010/09/sf-4-col-2-cained.html">this</a>. Carl Steward filled in for Andrew Baggarly on Friday night, and had a very surprising <a href="; of Cain's 2011 season. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's a lot to say about Matt Cain's 2011 season. His strikeouts are up from the last 2 seasons, and his walks are down. He's getting more groundballs, and allowing fewer home runs. His success against lefties has been especially impressive, possibly due to an improvement in his changeup, which he throws mostly to LHBs. The percentages differ whether you use Baseball Info Solutions or Pitch F/X, but the conclusion is similar: Cain has evolved in his pitch selection (I am using the Pitch F/X numbers): </div><div><br /></div><div>Career: </div><div>60.3% 4 seam fastballs, 12.8% changeups, 12.6% sliders, 11.6% curveballs, 2.1% 2 seam fastballs</div><div><br /></div><div>2010: </div><div>58.5 % 4 seam fastballs, 16.0% changeups, 8.8% sliders, 13.4% curveballs, 2.8% 2 seam fastballs</div><div><br /></div><div>2011: </div><div>48.3% 4 seam fastballs, 17.9% changeups, 11.7% silders, 13.5% curveballs, 8.2% 2 seam fastballs</div><div><br /></div><div>Not only has Cain increased his usage of the changeup since 2010, but he started developing a 2 seamer, and is now using it a significant amount of the time. I can't faithfully conclude what these changes mean exactly, but the difference in approach could be a reasonable explanation for why Cain is enjoying a career year. </div><div><br /></div><div>Cain has maintained low ERAs, BABIPs, and HR rates throughout his career while having only above average K and BB numbers, leading to two explanations from the statistical community: he's overrated and lucky, or he's the exception to the rule. Both views may now be outdated, because Cain's FIP this year is down to 2.87, almost a run better than his career average, and 15th best in the majors. His amazing 4.5% HR/FB this year means his xFIP isn't as kind, but at 3.51 it's still .75 runs better than his career mark. His BABIP and LOB% are normal for his career, in fact a bit worse, partly to blame for his Fangraphs-adjusted ERA (ERA-) being only just as good as the total for his career. </div><div><br /></div><div>I've been paying attention to this development in Cain for some time, which is why Carl Steward's confounding article from Friday bothered me so much. I don't imagine Steward cares what Matt Cain's FIP is; someone who rates Ryan Vogelsong as the most effective pitcher for the Giants this year probably only knows wins and ERA. Yet Cain's ERA is lower than it was last year. None of what Steward wrote really made sense. He described some kind of weird pattern of Cain pitching well in one start and then poorly in the next, something I haven't noticed nor what the record suggests. It could just be a case of looking at the past with...whatever the hell that metaphor is. </div><div><br /></div><div>"He hasn't been horrible, he just hasn't been the Cain everybody saw in 2010." </div><div><br /></div><div>That's unfair, and completely wrong. And so is Steward's line about Cain needing to become the rotation's "horse" again. I don't love that term, but it does describe part of Matt Cain's profile: he has never been hurt, and he pitches many innings each year. He can be counted on. Steward would have you believe that he has not been as reliable this season. Meanwhile Cain leads the staff in inning pitched, and he's been excellent at going deep into games. Lincecum and Vogelsong (Vogelsong in far fewer starts) have both failed to get past the 6th inning in 5 starts this season. Bumgarner hasn't gone past the 6th inning 4 times. Cain, reliable as ever, has only failed this criteria once, April 20th in Colorado. Very equine of him. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now stop saying mean things about Matthew Thomas Cain. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/07/matt-cains-career-year.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Reza)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-5469855429830721695Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:52:00 +00002011-06-11T16:30:18.143-07:00Bruce BochyCincinnati RedsSan Francisco GiantsTim LincecumCIN 10, SF 2: Lincecum Cold Streak ContinuesThat's now 3 iffy starts in a row for Tim Lincecum and today's was the worst. After striking out the first batter of the game, he struck out no more, walked 4, and gave up 7 earned runs in 4 innings. And just 36 of his 73 pitches were strikes. Yikes. Many, including the brilliant FOX broadcasters, are speculating that Lincecum's complete game, 133 pitch outing against the A's is the reason for the recent struggles. But I don't buy that one start is gonna mess with Lincecum and cause him fatigue, especially because it's not like he hasn't thrown a lot of pitches before. With him, there's really no concern that he won't figure it out; he's a great pitcher who has gone through struggles before, most notably August of last season. But it'd be nice if he figured it out soon because this offense can't afford for the pitching to be anything less than perfect.<div><br /></div><div>Speaking of the offense, that's going to be rough to watch for a while. It's been beaten to death, but it's really amazing that the Giants have not only been hit by a ton of injuries, but they've been injuries to very important players. As Grant at McCovey Chronicles pointed out, the entire Opening Day starting infield, with the exception of Miguel Tejada, is out right now. Posey, Belt, Sanchez, Sandoval. That's UNBELIEVABLE. I mean, it's not too great when Andres Torres is your best player on offense by a pretty large margin. The only glimmer of hope is that the offense really can't get too much worse (knock on wood), and they are still in first place. Pablo Sandoval may not be the same player he was at the beginning of the year when he comes back, but he's still better than Tejada. Brandon Belt isn't too far away from returning. Maybe Bruce Bochy will realize that Pat Burrell should be getting more starts at the expense of Aaron Rowand, who is again terrible. Things should get better, but it's gonna be ugly for a while.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, Burriss and Tejada hitting 1-2 in the lineup? Hahah, I guess Bochy never figured out what OBP is.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/06/cin-10-sf-2-lincecum-cold-streak.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-7036656774892548570Tue, 07 Jun 2011 03:05:00 +00002011-06-07T01:03:41.596-07:00Joe PanikKyle CrickMLB DraftSan Francisco GiantsDraft Reaction: Giants Select SS Joe Panik, RHP Kyle CrickThe Giants had two picks on the first day of the MLB Draft - one in the 1st, and one in the supplemental round - and used them on a college SS and a powerful high school RHP.<div><br /></div><div>Here's a scouting report for St. John's SS Joe Panik from Keith Law (Insider Only): </div><div><br /></div><div><div><a href=" /></div><div>And here's a more optimistic report from John Sickels of SBNation:</div><div><br /></div><div><a href=" /></div><div>I do not like the Joe Panik pick. He put up good numbers (.398/.509/.642) in college, but when it comes to draft prospects, stats usually don't matter as much as tools. He supposedly has a weak arm, may need to move to 2B, and doesn't have much power. And if you listen to most scouts, the Giants made a major reach and probably could have selected him with the 49th pick in the supplemental round. I don't like criticizing the Giants when it comes to the draft because they've been pretty freakin' successful in that department recently, but Panik is the type of low upside, limited power hitter the Giants always seem to go for. If you can't read Law's report, he calls Panik a likely utility infielder. Baseball America called the pick the "first truly off-the-board pick of the night" and compare him <a href=" Freddy Sanchez</a>. Not really what I'd like from my first round pick. </div><div><br /></div><div>My main issue with the Giants is that it seems like they doubt their ability to develop raw hitters, so they take safe players like Panik instead of somewhat risky players with more star potential. And then they decide to sign guys like Aaron Rowand and Aubrey Huff to supply the power in the lineup. That's worked pretty well. Not. You may point to guys like Buster Posey, Pablo Sandoval and Brandon Belt as hitters that have come through the Giants' minor league system and had success. I'd argue that Posey didn't need much development, Sandoval was signed on the international market, and Belt may be the exception to rule, assuming he pans out like we all think he will. Gary Brown (a pick I hated, so maybe you can call me an idiot in a year or so) is tearing up the minors right now, but his absolute ceiling is an All-Star leadoff man. I don't mean that to sound like a bad thing, but the Giants don't lack scrappy, high average hitters with speed as much as they do true middle of the order hitters. Maybe I'm being unreasonable; a good player is a good player. I suspect the Giants did prefer HS pitchers like Robert Stephenson and Joe Ross, who went slightly before the Giants picked. But with guys like Dillon Howard, Daniel Norris, and even someone like Travis Harrison on the board, Panik was still an overdraft. Maybe it has to do with my hatred of how the Giants deal with the draft and free agency. I've said it before: imagine Aaron Rowand not signing with the Giants, and the team using that $12 million every year on the draft. It's how it should be. The Giants played it too safe in my opinion and didn't get the best player on the board.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>In the supplemental round, the Giants selected Sherman HS RHP Kyle Crick.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's another report from Keith Law (Insider Only): </div><div><br /></div><div><a href=" /></div><div>There were other available high school arms on the board I preferred, like Howard and Norris, although they probably had high price tags and I certainly liked the Crick pick better than Panik. Crick is 6'3", 220 lbs, so he's not very projectable but has the body of a typical power pitcher. His fastball sits 92-97, and according to Law he has an average changeup and average slider right now. There may be some question as to whether or not he can be a starting pitcher, but he has the potential to be a No. 2 or 3 starter. Mostly, I like the pick because it's not a huge overdraft and I always love pitching prospects. There's not really much else to say for Crick, who shouldn't be an especially tough sign out of high school.</div><div><br /></div><div>Day 2 of the draft begins tomorrow. Let's hope for Josh Bell. Ha!</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/06/draft-reaction-giants-select-ss-joe.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-8858384213754467927Mon, 16 May 2011 01:41:00 +00002011-05-15T21:03:13.544-07:00Gary BrownMinor LeaguesSan Francisco GiantsZack WheelerTen Prospects to Watch<b><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">This is not necessarily a list of the top 10 Giants' prospects. I'd probably consider most of them to be in the top 10, but it's more a list of guys that really intrigue me. Maybe Eric Surkamp is a little too high, maybe Heath Hembree shouldn't be on the list, and where the hell is Ehire Adrianza? I don't necessarily expect a ton of people to agree with me. But the draft is near, I'm thinking about prospects, and I wanted to write about some who are exciting me. Also of note: I decided not to include Brandon Belt because we already know he's Will Clark 2.0.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>1. Zack Wheeler</b><div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Wheeler in the top spot doesn't need much explanation. As the Giants' top pick in the 2009 draft, he came in with the normal amount of hype a No. 6 overall pick usually gets and hasn't really done anything to make people skeptical. His first year in the minors was a bit of a disappointment, starting only 13 games and pitching 58.2 innings because of a finger injury. But coming into the year, many believed he was due for a breakout. Keith law scouted him and wrote <a href=" report</a> in the offseason. Just the other day, Adam Foster of projectprospect.com was at Wheeler's start and was clearly impressed. Just check out his tweets from that day or look for his write-up on the start in the next couple of days. So far this season, Wheeler has a 3.66 ERA with 41 Ks in 32 IP. That's a K/9 of 11.5 and his K/BB ratio of 3.15, compared to last year's 1.84, is also encouraging. It's hard not to get excited about a top pitching prospect and all the reports suggest that Wheeler has legitimate No. 1 potential. Hopefully he can keep it up and earn a midseason promotion to Double-A.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. Gary Brown</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>I hated the Gary Brown pick. A speedy centerfielder with supposedly no power or patience at the patience, and little upside? Ugh. But Brown's early results are hard to ignore. His stat line 36 games into the year is .367/.445/.513/.958. That on base percentage and slugging percentage seem to defy the knocks on him coming out of the draft. He'll never hit many home runs, but he has the potential to hit loads of doubles and triples into the gaps with his speed. That speed also helps Brown play excellent defense. As an advanced college hitter, dominating Single-A doesn't say much, but he should earn a Double-A promotion at some point this year if he keeps hitting like this. Considering how I originally felt about the pick, I'm pretty happy with how he's turned out so far.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. Eric Surkamp</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Surkamp probably has no business being No. 3 on a team's prospect list. His absolute ceiling is probably a No. 4 starter and he might be overachieving just a bit right now. But this list is of prospects who intrigue me. A guy who leads the minors in strikeouts and does it with an 89 mph fastball intrigues me big time. Although I've never seen him pitch, supposedly he's been able to striekout 56 batters in 38.1 innings with very good secondary stuff. That's probably pretty obvious because an 89 mph fastball isn't gonna miss any bats, but hey, it's still impressive. I mean his K/9 is 13.1! And he is unable to throw harder than 90 MPH!!! It's not like this is some fluke, either. In his 3 previous years in the minors, Surkamp never had a K/9 below 9.6. And his ERA is 1.88. Don't discount the fact that the Giants have someone above Single-A that could actually be a decent MLB starter someday. That is extremely important and makes Surkamp even more valuable than he'd normally be. Maybe it's because I have a soft spot for guys who can succeed with pitching rather than raw velocity, but I'm extremely excited to see how he develops.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>4. Charlie Culberson</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Culberson has had a somewhat rough start to the year, but he stays pretty high on this list due to his breakout year in 2010 and generally positive reviews from scouts after his AFL dominance. The Eastern League, a notoriously terrible league for hitters, has not treated Culberson well so far, obvious when you look at his .293/.333/.387/.720 line. He is not walking or slugging nearly enough. He's still young (22) and it's his first year in Double-A, so I'm not too worried. There is cause for concern, however, when you consider that 2010 was Culberson's only successful year in the minors so far. But scouts like Keith Law and Jason Grey of ESPN liked the swing and a 2B who can hit is always a nice prospect. So, here's to hoping 2010 wasn't a fluke.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>5. Thomas Neal</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>It's always been a bit hard to analyze Thomas Neal, as most scouts seem to think he'll be nothing more than a solid regular, and Giants fans constantly overrate him. Most of the reason Neal is high on this list is because he's probably the closest thing to a powerful, patient hitter in the Giants' minor league system. Neal has had some impressive numbers (mainly his 1.010 OPS in 2009), convincing many fans that he was a legitimate top prospect. In 2010, after a promotion to Double-A, Neal finished with a .799 OPS, which isn't terrible in the Eastern League especially considering he started to heat up towards the end of the year, but it's not particularly special either. Add in the fact that he's only played 12 games in Fresno this season because of injuries (always an issue for Neal), and it's still hard to know what he can become. Seeing as I don't claim to be any kind of expert, I do defer to the opinions of scouts, and they haven't fully bought into Neal. But he is still just 23 and has always had power and patience at the plate. I want to believe, but I think we need Neal to play some more this year in order to judge him as a prospect. At the very least, he should be a serviceable major leaguer.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>6. Francisco Peguero</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Even worse than Neal having played just 12 games this year, Peguero has played in none. Knee surgery has kept him off the field so far, but Peguero's solid 2010 season (.329/.358/.488/.846) means he remains as one of the Giants' top prospects. There are a few concerns with Peguero, though. He's not extremely young, as a 22 (almost 23) year old who hasn't yet played a game above Single-A. Also, Peguero is very much a hacker. He drew just 18 walks all of last season, which means he'll always have to hit for a high average to be a factor on offense. Maybe he will continue to hit for high average, but prospects with no patience always make me nervous. Peguero is also extremely fast and has decent power. He certainly comes with questions but is also a very interesting prospect.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>7. Jarrett Parker</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>If you don't know much about the Giants' minor league system, you may not even know who Jarrett Parker is. Well, he was actually the Giants' second round pick in the 2010 draft, and he's starting to show signs of becoming a good outfield prospect. Parker struggled early on, but has started to heat up in May, currently hitting .265/.386/.444/.830. The biggest plus is that downright sexy walk rate. You can see from the large difference between his AVG and OBP, that he walks a LOT. I love patience and you see so many young prospects who don't have it, so it's refreshing. I mean he's already walked more times (20) than Peguero did all last year (18). Right now he is striking out way too much (32 times in 31 games), but he is improving. Gobroks, who knows a ton about the draft and prospects in general (you can follow him on Twitter @Gobroks) actually thought Parker was a better prospect than Gary Brown at the time of the draft. That's an indication that he has a good amount of potential. Hopefully he builds on his May success.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>8. Heath Hembree</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Hembree is a relief pitching prospect in Single-A, so it might seem odd that he's on the list. But he interests me because he's someone with a lot of velocity on his fastball who could potentially move fast through the system and become a shutdown pitcher in the bullpen for the major league team for a while. Hembree, a fifth round pick in 2010, has had a lot of early success as San Jose's closer. 25 strikeouts in 15 innings and a 0.60 ERA is always nice, but it's not a huge sample size. Hembree did strikeout 22 batters in 11 innings in Rookie Ball last year, so his success isn't too unexpected. Mainly, Hembree has been mostly unhittable during the early part of his career, and I consider him to be the top relief pitching prospect in the system.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>9. Ryan Verdugo</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Verdugo is another guy rated highly because he's a SP prospect in Double-A, who's having success. What makes him even more intriguing is that up until this year he's been a reliever, but the Giants started his transition to a SP during the Arizona Fall League. So far, the results have been good. In 6 starts, Verdugo has a 3.03 ERA with 31 Ks in 29.2 innings. Not a large sample size at all, but Verdugo has always had good stuff and showed as much during the AFL. There's reason for optimism, and if he could give the Giants another SP prospect in the upper minors, that's huge.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>10. Brandon Crawford</b></div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>The Giants badly need a SS. Miguel Tejada sucks. Fontenot isn't the long-term either. Rarely are there good free agent options. In my mind, Brandon Crawford is the best shortstop option in the Giants' system. Crawford has always been great defensively and is probably major-league ready there right now. But his offense needs to progress. That seems to be a theme with Giants SS prospects, actually. It's why I rate Crawford ahead of Adrianza; I don't believe in Adrianza's offense at all and I believe in Crawford's a little bit. Crawford's problem is that he keeps getting injured. Just recently he's started rehabbing in Single-A and is soon scheduled to start his season in AAA. He's always been able to draw walks, so if he was able to hit for average just a bit more and play very good defense, he could be a pretty valuable major leaguer.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Feel free to comment with your disagreements, as I'm sure there are many. Also, on a semi-related note: the draft is coming up, so I hope to have some draft profiles, or at the very least a draft preview, so keep an eye out.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/05/ten-prospects-to-watch.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Mack)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8226069813653935955.post-582857688396973156Tue, 26 Apr 2011 01:16:00 +00002011-04-25T21:24:40.939-07:00Bud SeligDumb Fucking IdeaPhil CuzziPlayoff ExpansionWhy I Hate the Idea of Playoff ExpansionIn 1993, the Giants had one of the best seasons in their franchise's history. It was the first year of new ownership after Peter Magowan saved the team from moving to Florida, the first year for Dusty Baker as manager, and the first for newly acquired hometown hero Barry Bonds. The Giants won 103 games that season, but finished 2nd in the Western division to the Atlanta Braves. At that time there were only 2 playoff teams for each league, so the Giants missed out. That team is considered by many to be the best modern team to miss the playoffs. Partly because such a dominant team as those Giants missed out on the playoffs, Major League Baseball changed the division and playoff format. Now there were 3 divisions, and the 2nd place team with the best record would also make the playoffs as a wild card team. This is the system we have today. There are a few problems with it; it's possible to have 3 teams in 1 division all with better records than one of the division leaders, and because of that the teams with the best records don't always make the playoffs. But for the most part that doesn't happen.<br /><br />The current system has taken care of what it set out to do. In 2001, the Mariners won 116 games, while the Athletics won 102. If not for the wild card, that impressive A's team would have missed the playoffs. In 1997, the Yankees had 96 wins, 2nd best in the American League, but they needed the wild card because Baltimore had 98 (the other division winners had 86 and 90 wins).<br /><br />Let's look at that 1997 season in the context of the news we have heard of late, that Bud Selig is considering expanding the playoffs to 5 teams per league. The only ideas I've heard are these: 3 division winners, 2 wild cards (of the 2 best 2nd place teams), and a one game playoff between those 2 wild cards to determine the 4th spot, or: the same, except a 3 game playoff instead of just 1. Let's imagine this rule was in place in 1997. The 3 division winners in the AL would be Baltimore, Cleveland, and Seattle. The Yankees won 96 games, so they would be 1 wild card spot. The Anaheim Angels won 84 games, so they would be the 2nd wild card spot. Now the 96 win Yankees would have to face the 84 win Angels in a 1 game playoff to decide which gets to go on. Does that sound fair to you? We know that anything can happen in 1 game in baseball. That's why it's completely ridiculous to make a team with a 12 game advantage over another face elimination like that. I know one argument for this format is that it would make the division race meaningful. Baltimore and New York would be fighting to win the division so they wouldn't be that unfortunate wild card team. But no matter how hard each team fought to win the division, there's still a loser. One of those great teams is gonna have to face the barely above .500 Angels. The A's of 2001 would have had to face the 85 win Twins, a team 17 games back of them. In 2002, the eventual pennant winning wild card Giants would have had to face an Astros team that was 11 games back of them.<br /><br />These are the extreme examples. Many years the theoretical 2nd wild card team was only 1 or 2 games behind the actual wild card winner. But the last 5 seasons in the AL, the wild card team has been 5, 6, 6, 8, and 6 games ahead of the theoretical 2nd. That's a pretty significant gap. The average gap for the AL during the wild card era is 6 games. For the NL it is 3.<br /><br />The 1 game playoff is a nightmare. A 3 game series is not as bad, but I still hate it.<br /><br />The reasons MLB would want to do this? Monetary, to be sure, although I question how much could really be gained from 1 more day of baseball. I understand the reality of baseball as a business (although I refuse to say that's all it is) but I'm confused by the people <i>outside </i>of MLB who argue for this expansion on the basis of "bringing in the casual fan" or "single game events like the NFL" as if that should be the concern of any lover of the game. I know it isn't for me. The single game event is nice when it occurs at the end of a season because 2 teams are tied. What makes Game 163 or Game 7 of a playoff series special is that they come after so much; it loses all of that when it is a planned event that both teams will see coming weeks away probably (it would be a blessing for one and a nuisance or worse for the other) . Manufactured drama is the last thing a sport as powerful as baseball needs. <div><br />I keep calling it playoff expansion. But this really isn't expanding the playoffs. A 1 game playoff is a little novelty game, a dumbshow before the real play, exactly what it's unfortunate and misguided proponents want from it (to attract the casual fan). Which makes the consequences (a great team is eliminated by a mediocre one) of such an ill advised, absurd game all the more unjust. Real expansion of the playoffs would be adding another round and giving the 2 best division winners a bye and having 6 teams from each league, which I don't like either because that's too many teams. Baseball used to be 2 leagues, 2 pennant winners, and a World Series between them. Sometimes the teams cared more about winning the pennant than winning the World Series. Then the 2 division system was introduced, with 2 playoff teams per league. Then the 3 divisions and the wild card. 8 total playoff teams doesn't feel like a lot, with the NBA allowing more than half the league into the postseason. I think baseball has reached that balance between knowing we are watching (most of the time) the best teams play for the trophy, while also enjoying the randomness and suspense that a playoff atmosphere brings.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">Follow us on twitter at or just search "8thInnWeirdness".</div>2011/04/why-i-hate-idea-of-playoff-expansion.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Reza)0tag:blogger.